Written by Aphanas – Summer 2006
I’ve been asked several questions recently about remote viewing (RV) protocol, specific methods, and how to determine accuracy. In this article, we’re going to cover some common misconceptions and questions that beginners have when starting to practice remote viewing.
Can I have some help understanding RVing? This is the first time I’ve practiced this kind of perceptive skill.
I can certainly try to point you in a few directions that might be helpful. While I’m not an expert in the subject by a long shot, I’m passingly familiar with the basics.
First of all, there is a common misunderstanding that RV is a skill (like telekinesis or telepathy). It isn’t a skill at all, but rather a series of scientific protocols used when obtaining clairvoyant information. It was designed at SRI (Stanford Research Institute) in their Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, largely from some research conducted with Ingo Swann on gathering clairvoyant information. They needed a way to make the psionic information-gathering process more scientific, and allow it to be tested for accuracy.
RV protocols were developed to allow them to increase the accuracy of the information they were gathering psychically, and to determine how accurate a particular information-gathering session was. The RV protocols were set up this way because they were attempting to take a very vague and undefined area of human perception (clairvoyance), and make it more accurate by eliminating common problems that occurred when people tried to use clairvoyance (for instance, logically ‘guessing’ information about the target based on prior knowledge).
A good basic definition of RV would be (loosely paraphrased from Joe McMoneagle):
A scientific protocol used to produce correct information about a person, place, event, object, or concept that is located somewhere else in time/space, and about which the RVing individual has no existing information through conventional means.
There are three critical elements to all RV protocols:
- Everyone involved in seeking information about the target should have no existing knowledge of the target.
- There should be no known way for them to possibly gain information about the target other than through psionic means.
- There should be some way to verify the accuracy of the RV attempt objectively.
These three points are true of all the RV protocols (Coordinate Remote Viewing, Associative Remote Viewing, Outbounding, etc). For more detail on the definition of RV, and descriptions of some of the specific protocols, please take a look here:
Expanded RV Definition: http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/faq002.cfm
Types of RV protocol: http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/faq003.cfm
The three elements listed above tend to limit the ways one can refer to a target, and the kind of targets that one can use. For instance, because the RVer had to be kept “blind” to all target information beforehand, the folks that created the CRV protocol started using coordinates to refer to a target. They were originally geographic coordinates, but they found that it worked just as well if they made up a number/letter set and gave that to the RVer as the “target”.
RV targeting is also limited to things that can be confirmed objectively, even if they can’t be confirmed right now. So, a secret terrorist base’s location and layout would be a valid target, as would the physical structures of Europa (one of Jupiter’s moons), because both of them could eventually be objectively evaluated. For testing or practice purposes, a physical site or a photograph are good targets. Whether God exists, or which life philosophy is correct, would not be good targets because they can’t be objectively confirmed.
I’m kind of confused on how exactly you do it. What are the steps?
The confusing bit is that technically, anything that conforms to the guidelines I gave in the first section qualifies as a valid RV protocol. You can use a crystal ball to collect target information if you want to, or heavy trancing, or just sitting there and playing with a yo-yo… as long as you have no information about the target beforehand, you’ve eliminated all other methods of accessing information on the target, and you can objectively confirm the results later.
With that said, there are quite a few different specific methods that have been developed, and are commonly used with established RV protocols. The most well known is probably the system developed for use by the SRI group called Coordinate Remote Viewing (CRV). In that version of the RV protocol, they start by having one person choose a target and assign coordinates to it. That person then gives the target coordinates (and only the coordinates), to the remote viewing team.
The remote viewing team usually consists of a remote viewer and a monitor. The RVer’s role is to actually find and document any information discovered about the target, usually by recording any perceived information in a specified manner on a notebook. The monitor’s role is usually to make sure that:
- The remote viewer is given the coordinates at the start of the remote viewing session.
- The remote viewer stays within protocol guidelines and what is called proper “structure” for the CRV protocol.
- The remote viewer is prompted on the next steps in the protocol if necessary.
Initially, the RVer normally works their way through a specified method of accessing information psionically. It starts with attempting to contact what is called the “signal line” for the target. This is based on a concept developed by the SRI group that all information about any subject was available by accessing something called “The Matrix” (of no relation to the later comic book/movies of the same name). When accessing the Matrix, the RVer had to find information on their specified target by tuning into its unique “signal line”, very similarly to the way one tunes into an FM station on the radio.
This process was commonly started by having the RVer mentally reach out toward their perceived target, while tapping the target coordinates written on their notepad with a pencil. They would then spontaneously draw a simple reaction, or ideogram, when they felt that they had contacted the signal line. That reaction would be followed by the RVer recording a series of impressions about the target.
This brings us to the rather important concept of “structure” within the CRV protocol. Structure is the notion that if we are very careful when we record information during an RV session, we can minimize the amount of “noise” or false data coming down the signal line from the target. The structure used in the CRV protocol has several parts:
- All data coming from the RV session is recorded, no matter how trivial or strange. Interpretation of the data, to make sense of it, is done later… so you don’t get to decide what is relevant data (and what isn’t) during the actual RV session. Data is commonly recorded by sketching impressions, writing down descriptive words, or even modeling the target in clay.
- The RVer will record relevant information that could affect the results of the session in one corner of the “session sheet” in their notebook. This will commonly include information such as the time of day, the date, the weather at the time, and any “inclemencies” that could affect their performance (i.e. – “I have a cold today,” “I’m very tired tonight,” “I’m stressed,” etc.).
- When using words to record data, the RVer tries to describe all of the impressions they receive in adjective form, to minimize interpretation of the data. So, when doing RV, if you receive an impression of a large, orangish fruit that looks rather like a pumpkin, rather than writing down the noun “pumpkin”, you would write the adjectives “large,” “orangish,” and “fruitlike”. That way, when reviewing the data later, if the target turns out to be a buttercup squash, you have not skewed the data by assuming what the large, orangish, fruitlike item actually was.
- If a noun such as “pumpkin” does pop into your head, you write down the word and then label it as “AOL” (Analytical Overlay). That means your conscious mind was insisting on interpreting the data for you, so you wrote down its suggestion, but noted that it was likely an analysis of the data, rather than a direct description of what was coming down the signal line. It is common to take a break for a few moments when that happens, and record that on the session sheet as an “AOL break”.
- After the initial reaction and descriptions from the signal line, there are a series of additional steps taken to re-contact the signal line and pull additional data from it. These are organized in the CRV protocol into a series of “stages” during the RV session (Stage I – Ideogram Drawing and Major Impressions, Stage II – Sensory Data & Overall Dimensions, Stage III – Aesthetic Impact of the Target, Stage IV – Categorizing Data from the Target, etc.).
For more information on the details of how structure works in a CRV session, I’d recommend taking a look at the online version of SRI’s CRV Manual.
CRV Manual from SRI: http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/answers/crvmanual/index.html
As you can see, the CRV process is rather complicated. The idea was that by systematizing the methods for collecting and recording clairvoyant data, accuracy could be increased.
Well, I guess a better question is that I’m not too sure if the things I’m sensing are actual perceptions or not. Any help you can give me?
To answer the question of how to tell if the stuff you’re sensing is actual perception or not… it is perception by definition (because you are sensing/perceiving it). Therefore, you should be recording it, according to RV protocol standards. If you’re asking how to tell if your perceptions are accurate, that’s a bit harder. There is currently no established way to judge if your perceptions are accurate while actually receiving clairvoyant information. That’s why the RV protocols were developed in the first place.
There are some things you can do that will help accuracy. If you make sure that you are recording word impressions in adjective form, that process will help keep you from skewing the real data with your conscious mind’s interpretation of the data. Sketching your target data can also be helpful, as the mental process for drawing is usually less analytical than translating the data into words (and so less likely to result in AOL errors). Ultimately, however, the only way to tell if your perceptions are accurate is to record them and then verify them (principle #3 for all RV protocols).
Even the people acknowledged as the best in the world at RV only have an average 65% accuracy rate. That’s far above chance, but it’s not perfect. Nor are normal perceptions (just ask five people at the scene of an accident “what happened?”, and you’ll have that demonstrated). RV can still be quite useful for a number of applications even with that limited accuracy rate. Also, over time one can start to acquire a sense for when one is “on target” with an attempt – though most of that sense may come from judging how well you’ve kept in protocol, so that you’re not distorting the data coming to you from the target.
That covers our first three basic questions on the topic of remote viewing. I hope what I’ve outlined makes sense, and further questions are welcome at any time. If you’d like to do further reading on RV protocols, specific methods, or increasing accuracy, I would recommend starting with the sources listed below.
McMoneagle, Joseph. Remote Viewing Secrets: A Handbook. Hampton Roads Publishing Company. Charlottesville, VA. 2000. (ISBN: 1-57174-159-3)
On the Web
PJ’s Firedocs RV Collection
SRI’s CRV Manual
Joe McMoneagle’s website
Ingo Swann’s “Real Story of Remote Viewing”
SRI’s Cognitive Sciences Laboratory